In most states, yes. Some states, predominantly in the South, allow you to shoot intruders, sometimes with added requirements like you felt threatened, while at the same time prohibiting you from detaining them. In Florida, you can shoot anyone anywhere if you feel threatened, regardless of their age or whether they committed a crime.

Bathia_Mapes:Mrbogey: Bathia_Mapes: He forced the children into a closet and kept them there until the police showed up. In many states that's considered kidnapping, or false imprisonment at the very least. You cannot legally do what this man did and it doesn't matter whether it involved children or adults.

I hope that's not true because if it is then society is doomed. How can you not not allow people to detain a criminal until police arrive? That's an awfully British way to defend criminality.

You know if the kids fled they'd deny involvement and then there's essentially a property crime with no firm evidence other than one eyewitness making a claim.

Looking at the photos of how they left the place I'd say there's likely a lot of physical evidence. You know, stuff like fingerprints on the cabinets, paint cans & hammers, possible shoe prints on the spilled paint used while vandalizing the place, etc. At the very least that would prove that the kids were in the house. And I doubt they could convince the police that they were allowed to be there.

Seriously. I mean, if he beat them with the hammer then I'd agree he went too far, but holding them at 'hammer-point' until the cops show up seems perfectly reasonable. It's not like they just threw a few eggs at the house either, they broke into someone's home and cause a huge amount of damage. As some others have said, I think he showed a lot of restraint. I'd be positively livid if it were me.

if it where me those kids would have been returned to their parents with quite a few new bruises.

Seriously. I mean, if he beat them with the hammer then I'd agree he went too far, but holding them at 'hammer-point' until the cops show up seems perfectly reasonable. It's not like they just threw a few eggs at the house either, they broke into someone's home and cause a huge amount of damage. As some others have said, I think he showed a lot of restraint. I'd be positively livid if it were me.

if it where me those kids would have been returned to their parents with quite a few new bruises.

These kids are lucky they didn't run into some psychopath.

If the kids didn't return at all, the guy kept silent, no one saw them entering the home, no one knew where the kids were at or what they were doing they would just be some missing children most everyone would forget about in 6 months to a year. Kids got lucky.

Aigoo:Which is not what he was charged with by the police. The charge was 'endangering a child'. Not kidnapping, not false imprisonment. In order to take him to trial, the prosecutor has to decide whether or not the charge meets the criteria for the state's burden of proof.

It's not unheard of for a person to be charged with something that the prosecutor knows won't stick... when the prosecutor is being pressured to "do something" but doesn't really want anything done. I'd love for that to be the case here.

It is ok for mall or store security to apprehend a shoplifter and then detain them in an office or back room until police arrive.

Says who?

Happens all the time in Minnesota, North Dakota and Missouri. Can't speak for any other state. I worked at stores in all three states at various points in my life and have seen shoplifters detained in a back office in each at one time or another.

Intrepid00:No jury will convict him. On the plus side these monsters might be old enough their parents insurance will not pay.

Intentional acts of vandalism is a standard exclusion on a homeowners policy.

I was just discussing with my friends how I grew up with a healthy fear of my dad, not because he was abusive but because he was a disciplinarian. It would never have crossed my mind to damage someone's property. I'd have gotten in trouble from the homeowner and then in trouble again from my father.

Clearly these kids' parents do not subscribe to my father's point of view. They have a long road ahead of them and should get very used to court dates and prison visits.

The home owner did the right thing. Even if he knew who the kids were, if he let the kids run off then it would be harder to prove they did the damage. His word against their word, unless there were other witnesses. And it's not like the shiatty parents would do anything but defend their rotten crotch fruit, because they know they'd be liable for the damages.

If there's any justice left in this world, the home owner will have the charges dropped against him.

So in one corner we have dumbasses who don't know that in most (all?) places in America it is legal to detain people under some circumstances. In the other corner pretentious fools who know this fact and think this fact alone lets them judge all the nuances of the situation. Who will win?

All you people quoting the Boobieser in agreement are equally as dumb, it's called citizens arrest and anyone is well within their rights to detain a suspect of a crime until the proper authorities arrive. His lawyers will have a field day with this one.

It is ok for mall or store security to apprehend a shoplifter and then detain them in an office or back room until police arrive.

Says who?

Happens all the time in Minnesota, North Dakota and Missouri. Can't speak for any other state. I worked at stores in all three states at various points in my life and have seen shoplifters detained in a back office in each at one time or another.

Wulfman:Aigoo: Which is not what he was charged with by the police. The charge was 'endangering a child'. Not kidnapping, not false imprisonment. In order to take him to trial, the prosecutor has to decide whether or not the charge meets the criteria for the state's burden of proof.

It's not unheard of for a person to be charged with something that the prosecutor knows won't stick... when the prosecutor is being pressured to "do something" but doesn't really want anything done. I'd love for that to be the case here.

Pretty sure that's what's gonna happen. I'd love to see this judge have a "WTF is THIS?!" moment on the bench and throw it out with extreme prejudice.

"Bowler said his two boys are traumatized by the incident and their mother showed 13WHAM News a picture of the incident that she says one of them drew. Bowler also provided 13WHAM News with a photo of the neck of one of his boys because he said Daniels grabbed his son by the neck and left a mark.

"Oh they're traumatized, they haven't been to school they don't sleep until the sun comes up," said Bowler."

Jesus farking Christ!!! If my kids did that, they would be so traumatized by their punishment from me, that the dude who put them in a closet would seem like the tooth fairy.

Snapper Carr:N.Y. CPL. LAW § 140.35 : NY Code - Section 140.35: Arrest without a warrant; by person acting other than as a police officer or a peace officer....2. Such person must inform the person whom he is arresting of thereason for such arrest unless he encounters physical resistance, flightor other factors rendering such procedure impractical.....IANAL but it seems like he's covered.

IANALE, but I don't think this applies unless he informed the kids that he was placing them under arrest. This sort of citizen's arrest is how store security can legally detain shoplifters in some circumstances and locales, but there are still rules like this governing the arrests.

I read the article to my buddy. He said if these kids had lived in the town he had lived in growing up, the town would have ostracized them. Said there were a store owners that would refuse to serve the kids and would ask them to leave their stores or tell the parents the kids would need to wait outside. The local civic hall would also refuse the kids to have attended any social events held there for a solid year or more depending on how serious their crime was. He said he found out the hard way when he was 13 by putting a bleach bomb inside of a mail box and blowing it up, was caught and was given 20 hours community service. The worst part was the movie house wouldn't let him in for a year and he couldn't go into any of the stores or eat out with his parents at the local diner. Being banished by the town was worse than the beating his father gave him, he says.

Of course that's small town america. Would never happen in a suburb or town larger than 1000 people

Seriously. I mean, if he beat them with the hammer then I'd agree he went too far, but holding them at 'hammer-point' until the cops show up seems perfectly reasonable. It's not like they just threw a few eggs at the house either, they broke into someone's home and cause a huge amount of damage. As some others have said, I think he showed a lot of restraint. I'd be positively livid if it were me.

if it where me those kids would have been returned to their parents with quite a few new bruises.

These kids are lucky they didn't run into some psychopath.

If the kids didn't return at all, the guy kept silent, no one saw them entering the home, no one knew where the kids were at or what they were doing they would just be some missing children most everyone would forget about in 6 months to a year. Kids got lucky.

Yup, some people lose their temper over far less, like a damn parking spot dispute. To say he showed restraint is an understatement really. The only thing more amazing in this story is that the parents are acting outraged over their kids being held until the police showed up.

It is ok for mall or store security to apprehend a shoplifter and then detain them in an office or back room until police arrive.

Says who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkeeper%27s_privilege"In some jurisdictions of the United States, the courts recognize a common law shopkeeper's privilege, under which a shopkeeper is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, so long as the shopkeeper has cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit, theft of store property."

You are permitted to act within a reasonable way to defend yourself, your family and property. IMO, he showed great restraint. Schools have treated kids like them much more harshly for wearing banned clothing or even drawing a picture of a gun.

Since they had hammers, technically they had weapons. Would it have made a difference if they had guns? How about the fact they trespassed, broke and entered and committed malicious destruction of property? Also the simple fact that these innocent angels came up with the plan to break into a neighborhood home to wreck as much mayhem on it as possible and carried it out?

What was he supposed to do, stand there and let them run away? Maybe he didn't know where they lived. Then, the cops and he would have to spend days tracking them down.

He called the cops. He put them in a closet. He did not tie them up nor physically harm them. Personally, seeing that much damage done to a parents home by the little f**ks might have driven me to physical violence.

Stupidity like this caused great confusion and a real mess in the 70's when criminals started suing their victims who defended themselves or who physically chased them down and caught them. (Store personnel especially.) Eventually, that would lead to the creation of 'zero tolerance' laws that has packed our jails and prisons.

Had I done something like that as a kid, my folks would have torn my arse up! The heck with looking for a stupid excuse to file charges against the person who caught me.

That's like this stupid shiat with squatters. You go away on vacation and come home to find people living in your house, messing with your things. You can't go in there with a baseball bat and chase them out because they have 'rights'.

Funny, with all of these 'rights' available, the US has one of the highest populations in prisons in the world. We are also the most litigious nation on the planet.

The man did right. He prevented the 'armed' vandals from escaping without violence and turned them over to the cops. Now, he and his dad will have to go through the lengthy and expensive process of repairing the damage done to the house and probably have to sue the parents to be reimbursed for the expense.

Not to mention the emotional trauma of having one's sanctity of home violated.

I got robbed once in my own apartment. I stuck the very sharp tip of my switchblade under the chin of the thief and very nearly pushed it up into his nasal cavity. Even though he fled, was caught and arrested, I never did recover the money he stole.

Technically, I could have been arrested -- for using an illegal weapon when he had none -- but he was younger and stronger than I and could have done more harm to me if I had simply fought him.

The cops wisely ignored my use of the knife. The thief complained about it when arrested, but the judge figured he was lucky I hadn't sliced him up.

Another time, working in a department store, I had to watch a thief run off with a couple of hundred bucks worth of goods because I was NOT allowed to chase him beyond the store doors due to the possibility of him suing the store if I handled him roughly in the parking lot. (I didn't consider bouncing his head off a car or two as being 'roughly treated).

The Division of Youth Services needs to pay a visit to the parents of those kids.

This.

Trust me, it took a lot of restraint not to smack them upside the head and ask WTF they were thinking. Shoving them in a closest is probably better than what many people would've done. Heck, I've lived some places this could've gotten them killed and the bodies dumped.

Bathia_Mapes:namatad: If he had shot and killed them in self-defense, he would probably be ok now.

Really?I seriously doubt that.

If they were black, single parent, poor kids? He would be fine. Especially if he were old , rich, white.

thamike:namatad: instead, he was illegally arrest for a crime which he didnt commit.

He was charged with endangering a child, not with false imprisonment. The kids were charged with multiple felonies.

True. But the defense is that they were threatening and he used minimal force to restrain felons, in the act of a felony. His case will be tossed out, their case will be pled down. Their parents will get sued in civil court for damages.

THE only reason that he was arrested in the first place was to shut the parents up. FFS, they had to go back the next day to arrest him. The cops on the scene didnt feel that any endangerment had happened.

/you know this one of THOSE cases: rotten kids, rotten parents, tormented neighbor.

Infernalist:Speaking as a father, if my kids did something this farking retarded, I'd still kick the living shiat out of any guy who locks em in a closet.

And then I'd beat them within an inch of their lives.

It's all about priorities. You're not a cop, you're not a judge, you don't get to lock my kids up.

Speaking as a father I'd have no problem with my kids being locked in a closet to wait for the police. They weren't in any physical danger.

And beating them? Nope. I'd go for public humiliation. Something like a sandwich board with what they did on it right in front of their school and again somewhere populated so they could feel the burn of society's wrath. Probably some therapy too to find out what led them to do such a stupid thing.

Infernalist:Speaking as a father, if my kids did something this farking retarded, I'd still kick the living shiat out of any guy who locks em in a closet.

And then I'd beat them within an inch of their lives.

It's all about priorities. You're not a cop, you're not a judge, you don't get to lock my kids up.

Not sure if trolling but, he didn't lock them in the closet for three weeks, probably more like ten minutes. If you don't want you kids locked up, then teach them not to break into other people' houses and vandalize their stuff.

If I had done this, my father would have beaten me senseless, paid the man for the damage I caused, forced me (over the threat of another beating) to repair the damage I did and help the man with any other repair work on the home he needed. Then it would be expected that any money I made from mowing lawns and doing odd jobs around the neighborhood would be used to pay every cent back to dad. I'd also be grounded until dad felt my punishment was over (probably 6 months to year). These kids probably got an X-Box game and were told to go play it and leave mommy and daddy alone.

Bslim:Next time, just lock up and set the place on fire. Roast the little scumbags and blame them for the blaze too.

/Not kidding//not even a little bit///slashies

LOLimagine how UPSET the parents would be?YOUR HOUSE KILLED MY SNOWFLAKES!!!!!how? how did they get into my mouse?YOUR HOUSE KILLED MY SNOWFLAKES!!!!! Wait, they had hammers? Those aren't my hammers. Wait, those are you hammers?Wait, all the stuff in my house was broken before the fire started?So they destroyed my house, caused a fire and died. Suicide by vandalism!YOUR HOUSE KILLED MY SNOWFLAKES!!!!!

Bschott007:I read the article to my buddy. He said if these kids had lived in the town he had lived in growing up, the town would have ostracized them. Said there were a store owners that would refuse to serve the kids and would ask them to leave their stores or tell the parents the kids would need to wait outside. The local civic hall would also refuse the kids to have attended any social events held there for a solid year or more depending on how serious their crime was. He said he found out the hard way when he was 13 by putting a bleach bomb inside of a mail box and blowing it up, was caught and was given 20 hours community service. The worst part was the movie house wouldn't let him in for a year and he couldn't go into any of the stores or eat out with his parents at the local diner. Being banished by the town was worse than the beating his father gave him, he says.

Of course that's small town america. Would never happen in a suburb or town larger than 1000 people

Worse, the parents think that their KIDS were the injured party?We already KNOW who the problem is, the parents.The kids will grow up and spend time in prison. Nothing new.

T Baggins:Snapper Carr: N.Y. CPL. LAW § 140.35 : NY Code - Section 140.35: Arrest without a warrant; by person acting other than as a police officer or a peace officer....2. Such person must inform the person whom he is arresting of thereason for such arrest unless he encounters physical resistance, flightor other factors rendering such procedure impractical.....IANAL but it seems like he's covered.

IANALE, but I don't think this applies unless he informed the kids that he was placing them under arrest. This sort of citizen's arrest is how store security can legally detain shoplifters in some circumstances and locales, but there are still rules like this governing the arrests.

IAAL and telling them he is holding them until the police arrive is sufficient notice that he is arresting them, on top of the fact that they most likely offered flight or resistance.

The citizen's arrest is markedly different from the shopkeeper's privilege in that it they are able to only detain people long enough to sort out whether or not you stole something, and may do so on "reasonable suspicion" that you have committed theft. If you witness someone commit a felony, you can arrest them and take them directly to jail.

ReapTheChaos:All you people quoting the Boobieser in agreement are equally as dumb, it's called citizens arrest and anyone is well within their rights to detain a suspect of a crime until the proper authorities arrive. His lawyers will have a field day with this one.

Well, here's the whole thing:

California Penal Code section 837 is a good example of this codification:

837. A private person may arrest another:For a public offense committed or attempted in his/her presence, orWhen the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presenceorWhen a felony has been in fact committed, and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

"Public offense" is read similarly as breach of peace in this case and includes felonies, misdemeanors and infractions.[44][45] Note that there is generally no provision for an investigative detention by a private person under the law. With certain exceptions (see below) an arrest must be made. "Holding them until the police get there" is simply a form of arrest. The officer is accepting the arrest and processing the prisoner on behalf of the private person.[46]

In no state may an arrest for a misdemeanor be made without it occurring in the presence of the arrestor.[43] In the case of felonies, a private person may make an arrest for a felony occurring outside his presence but the rule is that a felony must have, in fact, been committed . For example, imagine a suspect has been seen on surveillance video vandalizing a building to the extent that the arrestor believes it rises to a felony due to the damage. If he finds the suspect and makes the arrest but it later turns out that it was misdemeanor damage, the arrestor is liable for false arrest because a felony had not, in fact, been committed. (source: Wiki, emphasis added)

I used to make "citizen's arrests" when I worked in loss prevention, and there's one very important fact that's being left out: A "citizen's arrest" is not actually an arrest unless and until the cops show up to effect the actual detention. Nobody has the power to deprive another of his liberty without due process except a sworn officer of the law. "Shopkeeper's privilege" is subject to very strict rules; there is no similar "homeowner's privilege" that lets you detain vandals even if you saw them trashing your house.

When the detainees are juveniles, the issue gets even trickier, because juveniles are under the custody of their parents, and nobody else may detain them without notifying their parents, not even the civil authorities. So this guy taking it on himself to lock up some kids, even if he caught them red-handed vandalizing his home, is on extremely thin legal ice even as to the "citizen's arrest," and worse as to the false imprisonment. He screwed himself twice as bad by locking them in a closet and subjecting himself to the child endangerment charge; if he was afraid the kids would leave, then he should have let them go and told the cops where they went.

I understand the need for vengeance and dislike of spoiled brats; but legally, this guy hasn't got a leg to stand on. You never have the legal right to detain another person without due process simply for property damage. Sorry.

Infernalist:Speaking as a father, if my kids did something this farking retarded, I'd still kick the living shiat out of any guy who locks em in a closet.

And then I'd beat them within an inch of their lives.

It's all about priorities. You're not a cop, you're not a judge, you don't get to lock my kids up.

Perhaps if you weren't such a farking failure as a parent, your kids wouldn't be committing felonies before thy have pubes? If my kids ever pulled some shiat like this, I would be thanking the FSM that the homeowner had shown that much restraint. I don't worry about that though because I've raised my kids to take responsibility for their actions and if they victimize innocent people, they're responsible for the consequences of those criminal behaviors. It doesn't make me a cool, ITG with precious criminal scumbag crotch droplings like yourself, but it makes me a great farking parent that is raising 2 kids that will be good adults who understand that there are consequences, dangerous consequences, for acting like destructive little farkwits.

nickerj1:thamike: The_Sponge: It's not kidnapping.....it's detaining them until the police arrive.

Legally, it could be kidnapping, more likely false imprisonment. Obviously, it would have been a bullsh*t charge that wouldn't have gone anywhere, hence the lack of aforementioned charges.

Legally, it could be jack shiat since they were in the commission of a felony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

Go herp your derp somewhere else.

TADAthey were fleeing felons.TADAhis arrest for endangerment was a false arrest. the charges will be dropped and he can sue in civil court for wrongful arrest. I hope he does. The cops KNEW that it was wrong to arrest him, but they did anyways because of crazed parents hoping that he will drop the charges against their snowflakes if they drop the endangerment charge against him.

Arthur Jumbles:Aarontology: Someone else breaking the law doesn't mean you can break other laws.

Self-defense.... four pre-teens, three armed with hammers all of whom are acting in a dangerous manner... if he keeps his mouth shut and lets his lawyer deal with the situation he'll get off.

Yeah, I don't see any crime on his part, either.

Rik01:Stupidity like this caused great confusion and a real mess in the 70's when criminals started suing their victims who defended themselves or who physically chased them down and caught them. (Store personnel especially.) Eventually, that would lead to the creation of 'zero tolerance' laws that has packed our jails and prisons.

Had I done something like that as a kid, my folks would have torn my arse up! The heck with looking for a stupid excuse to file charges against the person who caught me.

I think the parents are part of the problem.

namatad:the cops were being pressured by butthurt parents over their little snowflakes being arrested.(would bet money on this)

That was my first thought. That the kids are probably lying about him threatening them with the hammer was the second. I really don't see a problem here, especially with that level of damage. The police were called as soon as possible, and the kids likely weren't in there more than 20 minutes, tops. They were committing felony breaking and entering, and he just herded them into a closet. Good thing they weren't a few years older, as if they're already committing crime like this (especially since it's obviously retaliation from an encounter earlier in the day), the guy is lucky his skull didn't meet the hammers of the other three.

I also can't believe the parents are demanding this guy be charged. It's a sign of the special snowflake times I guess. Where the fark were you, parents?